View Full Version : Multiple hits (handgun and long gun) without incapacitation
BuckskinJoe
03-16-09, 05:34
A student of mine supplied this to me:
http://catm.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/FBI_Defensive_Systems_Unit_Ballistic_Research_Facility_FBIAcademy.pdf
The real purpose of the above report by the FBI was to dispel disseminated errors about the shooting and ammunition used. However, the part that got my attention is the fact the subject was shot 17 times with a combination of .223 rifle and .40 handgun ammunition before he was "stopped," and the report seems to indicate the subject did not die before he was captured but that officers had to "fight" the assailant to handcuff him!
Is anyone familiar with this incident? I have searched the net for information without success.
Is there some repository for information on such shootings, where the subject is shot multiple times with seemingly no effect?
Sure would appreciate it.
When I was an active paramedic about 17yrs ago, we responded to call where an unarmed PCP junkie had attacked two officers during a traffic stop. He was pepper sprayed, beaten with an ASP, shot 11 times with a 9mm and 8 times with a .30 carbine...17 COM hits between the navel and top of the sternum, one hit in the left thigh...and was still fighting when we arrived ~5 minutes later. It took six of us to get him strapped to the gurney and we thought he was going to rip the truck apart. He eventually bled out in the ER. One of the cops lost an eye in the struggle.
Through some miracle, none of the bullets hit his spine or heart. His lungs, liver, spleen and kidneys were perforated by several shots, but the PCP kept him going until exsanguination finally caught up with him. Unfortunately, I don't have any details about the performance of the bullets in this case. I saw the x-rays in the ER, but it was hard for me to tell which bullets related to which external wounds.
Hence why when you decide it is time for "deadly force", you apply the time tested 2 to the chest, 1 to the head method of force application.
Shooting 30 and 40 rounds into a person and not getting the desired effect? You SUCK at shooting!
Brains on the ground behind the perp normally ALWAYS will slow his advance.
Shooting 30 and 40 rounds into a person and not getting the desired effect? You SUCK at shooting!
Brains on the ground behind the perp normally ALWAYS will slow his advance.
When locked in a struggle with an opponent, you rarely get to take the "best" shot. You simply take the "best shot available". Two the chest, one to the head works well in the movies, but is rarely possible in real life. The human head is a small target when it's not moving. Try to hit one at night, when it's trashing around, while you're amped up on adrenaline and fighting for your life...it ain't easy.
He (the perp) took the time to reload a mag from a box containing rounds. He had the time and dexterity to stand/sit 20 feet from the officers and reload a mag... and they could not get 3 seconds for a head shot? I'm sure that there is more to the story, but I know a couple officers that could "aquire a target" and make the shot in a second or 2. I would not face off with a couple of my pal's that are officers and shooting enthusiasts...... because a second is all they would need to make your day go real bad.
I am very familiar with the incident you are discussing. It is not at all an uncommon result in actual shooting incidents against motivated opponents. Why is this event from 2006 still an issue? Following the PA shooting incident, the initial poorly done autopsy report by a doctor who was very inexperienced with GSW trauma created quite a controversy when it was discussed on NTOA; numerous emails went flying about and there was much outcry. The PD asked the FBI to help with the analysis. They produced a briefing that was sent to the PD; unfortunately, a bastardized, incomplete, unauthorized version of this report found its way onto the internet (as noted in the link) and has gone on to create even more controversy by folks who do not know what they are looking at. This BS keeps cropping up, no matter how many times we have publicly attempted to set the record straight--I personally have posted about this at TF, LF, M4C, and 10-8. Both the .40 and .223 rounds performed as expected based on lab testing--remember, there is a reason we always state that fragile .223 varmint and OTM projectiles are NOT a good choice for LE patrol use where vehicles and other intermediate barriers are present... See: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19881 and https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
BuckskinJoe
03-16-09, 15:18
I am very familiar with the incident you are discussing. It is not at all an uncommon result in actual shooting incidents against motivated opponents. Why is this event from 2006 still an issue? Following the PA shooting incident, the initial poorly done autopsy report by a doctor who was very inexperienced with GSW trauma created quite a controversy when it was discussed on NTOA; numerous emails went flying about and there was much outcry. The PD asked the FBI to help with the analysis. They produced a briefing that was sent to the PD; unfortunately, a bastardized, incomplete, unauthorized version of this report found its way onto the internet (as noted in the link) and has gone on to create even more controversy by folks who do not know what they are looking at. This BS keeps cropping up, no matter how many times we have publicly attempted to set the record straight--I personally have posted about this at TF, LF, M4C, and 10-8. Both the .40 and .223 rounds performed as expected based on lab testing--remember, there is a reason we always state that fragile .223 varmint and OTM projectiles are NOT a good choice for LE patrol use where vehicles and other intermediate barriers are present... See: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19881 and https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
My apologies for causing apparent offense by trying to find out more about a specific OIS and others like it. I did not know about it until recently. Please accept my apology, Doc, for causing such a stir. I have read the threads you posted, along with all others, but consider this matter dropped. I wish I had never asked the question. Will never ask another!
They produced a briefing that was sent to the PD; unfortunately, a bastardized, incomplete, unauthorized version of this report found its way onto the internet (as noted in the link) and has gone on to create even more controversy by folks who do not know what they are looking at.
I'm assuming that the original/complete article is not available to the general public?
He (the perp) took the time to reload a mag from a box containing rounds. He had the time and dexterity to stand/sit 20 feet from the officers and reload a mag... and they could not get 3 seconds for a head shot? I'm sure that there is more to the story, but I know a couple officers that could "aquire a target" and make the shot in a second or 2. I would not face off with a couple of my pal's that are officers and shooting enthusiasts...... because a second is all they would need to make your day go real bad.
Have you been in a gun fight where your life was on the line?
MisterWilson
03-16-09, 16:19
Have you been in a gun fight where your life was on the line?
I'll take the Vegas odds on that...
John_Wayne777
03-16-09, 23:08
Shooting 30 and 40 rounds into a person and not getting the desired effect? You SUCK at shooting!
It's real easy to be a stud when you're shooting at a paper target that isn't moving. It's a bit more complicated when dealing with a moving target who is using cover and shooting back.
In a real life gunfight you don't always get to pick what you're shooting at. You simply shoot at what's available when it's available.
John_Wayne777
03-16-09, 23:23
He (the perp) took the time to reload a mag from a box containing rounds. He had the time and dexterity to stand/sit 20 feet from the officers and reload a mag... and they could not get 3 seconds for a head shot?
You're making these statements from behind the safety of a keyboard. Life is much different when you are looking over the sights at a situation developing right in front of you.
You do not become omnicscient in a gunfight. You do not have all the neat tidbits of information. So the guy goes into the truck to get more ammo to continue to shoot at the officers....how exactly are the officers supposed to know this? Can they see what he's doing clearly? Seeing as how he's using a vehicle for cover, I doubt it. How do they know he's out of ammo? In a situation where you've already been shot at and where one officer is down do you really want to abandon a position of cover to go charging in on a dangerous dude like the lone ranger on the theory that the reason he's going into the truck is that he's out of ammo?
How do you know what is in the truck? Is he going in to get more ammo, to try and drive away, or is he going to pull out a rifle and start blasting at you? When you decide to cowboy up are your fellow officers prepared to cover you and/or maneuver with you safely? Charging downrange without coordination with fellow officers can result in facing bullets from both sides...not an enviable position to be in. What's the background like if you approach the guy from this angle? How about that one over there? What's beyond him in case you miss?
....in other words, it's not as simple as you are making it out to be.
I'm sure that there is more to the story, but I know a couple officers that could "aquire a target" and make the shot in a second or 2. I would not face off with a couple of my pal's that are officers and shooting enthusiasts...... because a second is all they would need to make your day go real bad.
I've trained under guys who have been in elite military units where they spent considerable amounts of time awarding virgins and in general dispatching various breeds of nasty individuals who needed to die.....and to a man they will all tell you that there's nothing simple about gunfights.
The square range is an artificial environment. We train there because it's the only viable option we have for weapons training, and it's been proven that the skills developed there can come in real handy in the real world. That being said, it is critical that we do not allow a square range mindset to infect our thinking or decision making to such a level that it hinders our ability to perform in the real world.
John_Wayne777
03-16-09, 23:28
My apologies for causing apparent offense by trying to find out more about a specific OIS and others like it. I did not know about it until recently. Please accept my apology, Doc, for causing such a stir. I have read the threads you posted, along with all others, but consider this matter dropped. I wish I had never asked the question. Will never ask another!
Don't go overboard.
There's nothing wrong with asking questions...but you must understand that someone like DocGKR gets LOTS of repeat questions. This particular incident has made several rounds on the internet and even a couple on this site before. Nobody's jumping on you. DocGKR was just setting the record straight in a quick, no nonsense manner.
DocHolliday01
03-16-09, 23:30
He (the perp) took the time to reload a mag from a box containing rounds. He had the time and dexterity to stand/sit 20 feet from the officers and reload a mag... and they could not get 3 seconds for a head shot? I'm sure that there is more to the story, but I know a couple officers that could "aquire a target" and make the shot in a second or 2. I would not face off with a couple of my pal's that are officers and shooting enthusiasts...... because a second is all they would need to make your day go real bad.
Well it's easy for you to sit here and MMQB the Officer's involved in this situation. I notieced you havent answered this question yet I will ask it again, have you been in a gunfight/fight for your life? If not your opinion really has no merit in the conversation. If you looked at the pictures/xrays you would see that there was nothing wrong with the shot placement. The perps hip, elbow, and ankle were all shattered by rounds. On top of having a collapsed lung. I would say those are pretty good hits in a gunfight.
This e-mail showed up again around here, it's like herpes, I think it has gone away, and then it pops back up again.
I have heard from several people lately about how this show that the .40 "Lacks stopping power", etc.
I did a thread on another forum about 'unrealistic expectations". The real issue is folks who think that "stopping power" exists.
Handgun poke holes in people and things, that's it. It's our job as good guys to be sure that the holes are placed in the bad guys where they will do us the most good.
...and, just to kick a dead horse, as it has come up elsewhere; NO, going to the .45 is not the answer to this question.
John_Wayne777
03-17-09, 06:33
This e-mail showed up again around here, it's like herpes, I think it has gone away, and then it pops back up again.
I have heard from several people lately about how this show that the .40 "Lacks stopping power", etc.
That's the real annoyance here. This thing has taken on a life of its own on the internet and people make all sorts of incorrect judgments based on a misunderstanding of what they are seeing, and then they pass off those ideas as authoritative.
In reality in literally hundreds of shootings the .40 caliber has proven to be very effective when loaded with the right bullets...but people see this one thing presented in the wrong context and the stampede mentality takes over. That's not a ding on anyone seeking information to correct some nonsense that they've heard about this, it's just a statement of the reality of why this incident brings the "not this again" reaction out of people.
I left work yesterday at 3PM Eastern. That is why I did not post since then.
I was going to reply. I had 5 paragraphs typed in and just deleted it. No matter what I type, it really means nothing and will do nothing but feed into some of you. So I will allow this post to starve and not feed into its anger by induced anger.
I do understand what your saying, and your correct. I am wrong, you are right.
See how easy that was!
...and, just to kick a dead horse, as it has come up elsewhere; NO, going to the .45 is not the answer to this question.
"Shot placement is obviously critical, and our test criteria presume that the shot is placed in the vital area of the body, which contains the brain, upper spinal cord, heart, and aorta/vena cava. This area runs from just above the eyes to the diaphragm, and is about 4" wide. But, as our experience in Miami amply illustrates, shot placement is only the first part of the equation. Jerry Dove placed his shot perfectly. Bullet performance is critical to translate shot placement into an effective, incapacitating wound. If shot placement was all that mattered, we could arm all Agents with .22's. Secondly, perfect shot placement may be difficult to attain in the stress and dynamics of a shooting incident. The larger calibers offer a "margin of error" in that where a smaller bullet may just miss the aorta, for example, the larger one in the same placement will damage it. A good example is killing a 400lb pig with a .22, something commonly done on the farm. If the shot placement is exactly right, the pig is killed quickly. If it is off less than an inch, the pig goes wild and the process of killing it becomes rather lengthy and involved, whereas a larger caliber would succeed with a larger margin of miss than an inch."
-Agent Urey Patrick from "10mm Notes" briefing
Provided that the platform used is ideal and the handling characteristics are good, then it is advantageous to use a larger caliber. In the case presented above, the suspect was often only exposing small parts of his body and for only brief amounts of time. You shoot what you can, and often those little non-vital body parts that get exposed are only going to be there for one hit before the suspect recoils and changes position. In that regard, your single shot hits will be more effective with a larger caliber. There is also the very effective tactic of bouncing rounds off of pavement to hit a suspect's legs who is using a car as cover. The higher the mass and momentum of your bullet, the better it performs at this task. There is also the advantage of breaking internal bone structure that a larger, heavier caliber offers. Shattering a femur, a humerus, a pelvis, or other major structure might be enough to cripple the suspect to take him out of the fight or at least greatly limit his ability to fight.
In many cases, moving up in caliber grealy limits your magazine capacity which I don't like. In a gun fight, officers often sustain wounds to their hands and arms making reloading very difficult. In some platforms, going from 9mm to .45acp is a big capacity compromise and from a tactical standpoint, may not be worth it. In some platforms, moving from 9mm to .40S&W isn't bad at all and it might be worth the transition. One example would be the M&P in which I feel there is hardly any measurable advantage to using the 9mm version over the .40S&W version. Just one man's opinion......
I was going to reply. I had 5 paragraphs typed in and just deleted it. No matter what I type, it really means nothing and will do nothing but feed into some of you. So I will allow this post to starve and not feed into its anger by induced anger.
I do understand what your saying, and your correct. I am wrong, you are right.
See how easy that was!
Sure. The problem is that you are not sincere. You could have chosen to respond to some of the more meaningful posts and maybe learned something. JW777 especially made some very good points - especially given who he has worked with and the first-hand accounts of real gunfights - but instead you sound like you're going to cling on to your beliefs and dismiss the collective input with a sleight of the hand.
Your choice, but you're doing yourself a disservice assuming I've read the intent in your post correctly.
<snip>
Fancy meeting you here. ;)
Speaking of this thing popping up like herpes - it popped up in GD again a few days ago. Wouldn't you know it, one of the first posts was by someone who was startled by the "fact" that .40cal JHP's only penetrate 1". It kind of makes you want to beat your head against the wall, as that was the rumor the powerpoint was specifically trying to dispel.
John_Wayne777
03-17-09, 18:47
Fancy meeting you here. ;)
The restraining order says 100 feet, dude....back behind the line. :D
Speaking of this thing popping up like herpes - it popped up in GD again a few days ago. Wouldn't you know it, one of the first posts was by someone who was startled by the "fact" that .40cal JHP's only penetrate 1". It kind of makes you want to beat your head against the wall, as that was the rumor the powerpoint was specifically trying to dispel.
I must have missed the most recent incarnation of it in TOS GD....thankfully.
Mo_Zam_Beek
03-17-09, 19:49
I have a copy of this as a power point (I think it is the same version) and some where along the way read that it was the unauthorized version. In reading it (its been a while) I am kind of suprised it caused such a controversy. I thought it was pretty clear per the report - ammo preformed within design spec, points of impact were not near term fatals. The take away to me - and the context that I have added it to thread discussions on other sites (and passed the PP on) has been along the lines of shot placement is paramount. Beyond that, it is worth keeping abreast of some of DocGKR's posts on terminal balistics.
It is what it is. A firearm isn't a lightsaber.
Good luck
I must preface saying that I only skimmed all the replies to the inital post, however, I think a quantifying factor in this incident is the litigation aspect that most law enforcement are forced into dealing with and is now becoming a very real factor in military shootings downrange. The over application of force is not looked upon favorably for the good guys since the "shoot until they come apart" aspect needs to be avoided for a court be in favor of the good guy, which is unfortunate as shot placement is a nice idea when available but not entirely practical in the real world.
Take my opinion with a grain of salt in regards to LE incidents and "super duper one shot stopping bullets", which is limited because I still have the option to back off from a bacacaded shooter and lob grenades, 40mm or drop a bomb.
Worth maybe $.02
Beat Trash
03-19-09, 09:08
I haven't seen the internet report referred to in this thread. Probably glad I haven't.
I am a LEO, and have been for the last 17 years, in a mid-western Department of around 1,200 officers.
I do not have the credentials that Dr. Gary Roberts, nor do I try to pretend that I am a ballistics expert. I will defer to Dr. Roberts in that area, as he does know what he's talking about.
Over the years I have learned a few things about OIF's, that I would like to share.
Unless you were there, you will never know what it was like. Don't try to assume anything.
Tactics and Shot placement are everything. I have seen suspects shoot people with just about everything there is. I have seen the 45acp fail and the 25acp work.
Shooting at a fixed piece of paper in broad daylight is not the same as being in a critical incident. Playing the various shooting games is not the same either.
Things change when someone is trying their best to kill you. Your pulse rate tends to go up a bit, and you can get distracted, and might forget some of the basics, such as your gun has a front sight on it for a reason.
Many a great pistol shot can lose it under stress. Many a mediocre pistol shot have performed under stress. There is a slight difference when shooting a piece of paper/steel, and when shooting a living human.
The perfect stance might not be an option, and might get you killed. You have to shoot the best target presented to you, without presenting a good target to the opponent.
And lastly, some people are just harder to kill than others. Be it from body armor, drugs, adrenalin, mental status, what ever (this is the area Dr. Roberts could explain MUCH better). Don't assume anything. Watch the front sight, put rounds on target, and keep doing so until it's over.
Sorry for the soap box type of lecture. For those of you who have been involved in a critical incident, didn't mean to bore you. For those of you who haven't had the misfortune of having someone try their best to kill you, please don't try to pretend you have. Consider yourself fortunate... Please trust me, you could do without it...
If hits to the upper torso didn't work, target the brain.
Easier said than done in the real world, sometimes.
Bottom line, apply objectively reasonable force until the threat stops the actions that made it necessary that you use force.
BuckskinJoe
03-20-09, 04:30
A student of mine supplied this to me:
http://catm.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/FBI_Defensive_Systems_Unit_Ballistic_Research_Facility_FBIAcademy.pdf
The real purpose of the above report by the FBI was to dispel disseminated errors about the shooting and ammunition used. However, the part that got my attention is the fact the subject was shot 17 times with a combination of .223 rifle and .40 handgun ammunition before he was "stopped," and the report seems to indicate the subject did not die before he was captured but that officers had to "fight" the assailant to handcuff him!
Is anyone familiar with this [particular shooting] incident? I have searched the net for information without success.
Is there some repository for information on such shootings, where the subject is shot multiple times with seemingly no effect?
Sure would appreciate it.
Interesting....nobody, not even Doc, ever answered the origninal questions. Oh, well....
Is anyone familiar with this incident? I have searched the net for information without success.
Beyond the version that was released on the internet, no. Unless you have some sort of LE trainer status or special investigator status, it is hard to get ahold of other agency police and autopsy/coroner reports. This information is not just put out for public viewing.
Is there some repository for information on such shootings, where the subject is shot multiple times with seemingly no effect?
Repository for any of us to access?....no. Some agencies like the FBI use shooting incidents as training tools and for research. For instance, the FBI ballistics division has been collecting shooting data for decades for use in setting standards for firearms and ammunition(one of many reasons why it is logical to trust the FBI recommendations). I can list around a dozen cases where a suspect was shot multiple times in the torso with little noticable stopping effect. 9mm, .40S&W, .45acp, .357sig, .357magnum.......all have had similar histories of stopping the bad guy quickly, and taking mulitiple shots before the suspect is stopped. When shot placement is good and the ammunition is well designed, the incident is over more quickly. As I mentioned earlier from Agent Patrick's remarks, larger calibers give you a slightly better margin of shot placement error.
Another problem with many of these shootings is officer training. We train to shoot center mass, however when aiming COM there is a large margin of error should you shoot low or to the left/right. The ideal shot placement is several inches higher than COM to target the more vascular region of the upper chest. This also gives a better margin of shot placement error because if you shoot low or left/right there are more vital areas that still fall within that range of error than with aiming COM. Your natural tendency is usually to aim lower under stress, and many suspects are taking hits to the abnomen, lungs, or other areas that do not produce rapid incapacitation results on a determined suspect. There's a few agencies that have been training to aim higher than COM and have had good success with their service pistols. In Peter Soulis shooting, Officer Soulis shot the suspect over ten times COM with little noticable stopping effect. He was using .40S&W 155gr Ranger SXTs and most of them expanded and existed the body.....and most of them also did not hit anything of importance. He shot the suspects right lung 6 times, and the remaining hits were to his abnomen. So, like many officers, Soulis had the tendency to aim lower than COM.
For those of you who haven't had the misfortune of having someone try their best to kill you, please don't try to pretend you have. Consider yourself fortunate... Please trust me, you could do without it...
I do consider myself fortunate and hope I am never in a situation where I have to defend myself or my families lives. I will of course if I have to but I would certainly prefer not to have to test my training.. target shooting, IPSC/IDPA and hunting are NOT the same thing as having someone shooting at you..
and thank you guys for being out there on the front line for us
Hmmm....
You asked:
1. Is anyone familiar with this [particular shooting] incident? I have searched the net for information without success."
I answered: "I am very familiar with the incident you are discussing."
2. "Is there some repository for information on such shootings, where the subject is shot multiple times with seemingly no effect?"
I answered: It is not at all an uncommon result in actual shooting incidents against motivated opponents.
Perhaps my answer did not go into enough detail. Since on average, at least as many handgun shootings end with multiple hits that cause no immediate physiologic incapacitation as otherwise, this is not particularly an unusual event. Many LE agencies track their OIS incident results; the key is to use sound anatomic and physiological analysis based on shooting scene forensic examination, surgical/post-mortem findings, and lab testing to assess the totality of the event and not jump to hasty, knee-jerk, erroneous conclusions based on inadequate or improperly interpreted data.
Here is something that simply baffles me...
When I'm tinkering around the house or garage and I smash a finger with a hammer or stick a screw driver into my hand..... I scream and yell and jump around in pain and normally drop whatever I was holding and pretty much loose it for a few seconds of time. I eventually calm down and start to administer electrical-tape aid to slow or stop my blood flow.
How in the world does a human take a red hot bullet into the body and not act like a flailing idiot! One would put me into a frenzy of pain/fear, I would be an idiot jumping around like a chicken with its head cut off.
It completely amazes me to hear these tales of men taking multiple shots to thier flesh and still act in a semi calm and decisive manner... still able to attempt to complete thier self induced mission.
WTF? I must be the worlds biggest baby!
How in the world does a human take a red hot bullet into the body and not act like a flailing idiot! One would put me into a frenzy of pain/fear, I would be an idiot jumping around like a chicken with its head cut off.
If you believe that and make it part of your mindset, I guarantee you'll be right.
John_Wayne777
03-20-09, 11:27
How in the world does a human take a red hot bullet into the body and not act like a flailing idiot!
Believe it or not you may not even feel it. When I was shot I was aware I had been hit and I was aware that I was bleeding, but it took a couple of minutes before I felt any pain. Adrenaline is a hell of a drug.
Of course, once the adrenaline sort of wore off the pain started and it hurt like a bastard.
I'm not the expert here (DocGKR is), but I have done enough reading on the subject to be able to say this:
There are so many variables in a critical situation that it is almost impossible to predict how people will react. Drugs, mindset, physiology, shot placement, etc can all impact how the situation develops.
One of the most graphic examples of this is an episode of COPS where some Philly PD officers responded to the scene of a 911 call about an intruder. They arrive and they see a large naked dude inside a barber shop with a bullet hole in his chest. He was high on PCP IIRC, and had tried to bust into the upstairs of the barbershop where the owner lived. The owner, in fear of the intruder, shot through the door and hit the guy in the chest.
...and the dude seemed to take absolutely no notice of it. With a bullet in his chest he proceeded to fight with the cops for the next 4 or 5 minutes. They had to get at least 7 or 8 officers on top of him to even subdue the guy....and this is while he is bleeding from a GSW to the chest.
When someone is shot they may crumple to the ground instantly and think they are doomed...or they may pay absolutely no attention to the GSW either because they are high, enraged, or just determined to win no matter what the cost. The human mind is a very powerful thing.
anyone that has hunted can attest to how different animals are effected by being shot... seen deer shot with a 308 clean through the heart and exit with a 2" diameter wound run 100 yards.... etc..
even after a "killing shot" they can still live long enough to shoot you
I have no intentions on testing any of the theories of being a gun shot victem. F that. If a active shooter is in range of me and/or my family I would react accordingly. If he was not MY families immediate threat, I would run like all-get-out while calling 911 and dragging my family along in post-haste! I have no interest in being Super Man.
While on the topic of who will run and who will stay.... why is it that the guys that are tasked with getting in between my family and the bad guys with rage and bullets are getting paid upper-lower class wages? That is some kind of bull crap right there. Those being asked to risk all for all should be compensated in accordance with the responsability. I have 3 pals that are LEO's, one is a Sherrif and two are local PD LEO's. I'm embarressed of what our govt pays them. It's an insult, not a pay check.
Littlelebowski
03-20-09, 11:58
Here is something that simply baffles me...
How in the world does a human take a red hot bullet into the body and not act like a flailing idiot! One would put me into a frenzy of pain/fear, I would be an idiot jumping around like a chicken with its head cut off.
I didn't. It sucked and I had to bite on something for the pain but I didn't spaz out.
Last weekend we slaughtered 12 roosters, I would have fit in well with how they react to a hatchet to the neck. You got to grab hold of the feet and hang on, because when the head comes off.... they go crazy.
#1 reason I never joined the service.....fear of bullets....especially when coming towards me.
This is why we have 'Failure Drills'
To drill out the failures in the squad.... the ones that collapse in fear, lock up solid, or run away screaming.
The gunfight in question started out as an ambush of the first officer who arrived at the scene of a domestic disturbance.
The two other officers had carbines available and reacted to the first officer being shot.
The bad guy's mindset can be looked at by the one tatoo "Live by the gun, Die by the gun" He wanted this, and he wanted it bad.
He did not stand still and cooperate, he was ducking and moving behind parked cars, in the dark.
We can tell he was right handed, and did not use cover well when shooting, as he is hit up and down his right side.
These is more, but this is an open forum.
I don't have anything reasonable to contribute regarding ballistics other than that there is a degree of uncertainity as to the response of a gunshot victim.
One important thing I took away from the powerpoint, was the officer firing underneath a vehicle and hitting the suspect in the ankle which allowed the suspect to be manuevered on and eventually culminated the engagement. Drives home the point made early in the thread about training at a square range versus real life engagements.
...and, just to kick a dead horse, as it has come up elsewhere; NO, going to the .45 is not the answer to this question.
you're right. it would probably take a 357SIG to have stopped this guy with one shot...
you're right. it would probably take a 357SIG to have stopped this guy with one shot...
Really? Seriously?
Nah, everyone on the internet knows that only an FN 5.7 mm could take him down with one shot...
I've never understood the two in the chest one in the head deal...it always seemed to me like it should be the other way around. To me, after the first shot hits the chest, the head is gonna be moving all over the darn place? And everyone who's been involved with a incident posted the same things here..so to me its a no brainer (pun?). I understand different LEO's, different branches of the military, and different Fed agencies all teach variations of the basics but adding in the "one in the head" seems like it would be a luck shot at best. The only guy's I've noticed who definately put one or two in the head are the Israelis..and that's after ya fall down and are laying there!!! I suppose we'd change it up a bit also if there were a lot of suicide bomber's here in the States.-WW
Iraq Ninja
05-02-09, 16:20
Shooting the head is a no brainer (pun intended), but easier said than done. I don't know the details of this incident, but when people are shooting at you, they use what they think is cover. So, you end up shooting at what you see, or thru vehicles, or even the feet if that is all you can see.
In regards to the attackers mindset and fighting while shot, I think the opposite can be said for those who are shot, but not expecting it. They often drop like bricks.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-02-09, 22:23
I've never understood the two in the chest one in the head deal...it always seemed to me like it should be the other way around. To me, after the first shot hits the chest, the head is gonna be moving all over the darn place?
I wonder if it is because the two to the chest have a chance of causing the BG to pause, giving a better head shot? The head shot I would think is also a lower percentage shot than the chest shots? If the head shot is a flier, you've just lost precious time before swtiching to the chest shots.
One thing that I've seen come up, that I've happily never had to deal with, is that we pick targets for the range so that we can see the hits. I'm assuming that unless the BG has glow sticks all over him, it will be tough to see the hits?
I always thought 2 to the chest THEN 1 to the head was for civil suite reasons.
Taking a head-shot right off the bat "looks bad"
---"Your Honor, the officer was obviously trying to KILL Mr. X, not "stop him". *long list of 1-shot stops to torso follow, along with video demonstration or whatnot about how the human head is "the hardest taget to engauge on a moving individual" and how the officer must have been coldly calculating a kill-shot and then they drag the officers gambling problem or WHATEVER he has going on in his personal life into the court room and it just gets ugly.*
vs.
---"Your honor, my client fired 2 times at the assailants chest--he was scared and felt threatened of life and limb. It was the largest target he had and in his state of mortal fear, it is what he shot at. When that didn't work, he did the only thing he knew to do. He took a headshot."
Another thing to note, a head-shot is not always a good shot. Many times they can glance without achieving penetration of the skull. SO the shot has to be more "dead on" than just in a 6-7" circle...on a moving target...against a "hardened target"...ect.
Two to the chest and one to the head was originally, near as I can tell, made the fall back from the "standard response" of two to the torso after the real life "Mozambique" incident outlined by Col. Jeff Cooper.
Head shots are very difficult to make at all but the closest ranges, especially when the bad guy knows they are in a fight and doesn't want to stand still for your head shot. Just getting torso hits in a fight can be an issue for almost everyone.
I wonder if it is because the two to the chest have a chance of causing the BG to pause, giving a better head shot?
I always thought 2 to the chest THEN 1 to the head was for civil suite reasons.
No and no.
Two to the chest and one to the head was originally, near as I can tell, made the fall back from the "standard response" of two to the torso after the real life "Mozambique" incident outlined by Col. Jeff Cooper.
Yes. The original "failure to stop" drill, nicknamed "the Mozambique", was for at near distances if two shots center-of-mass failed to immediately neutralize the target, they were followed up with a well-placed head shot.
Iraq Ninja
05-04-09, 05:56
I wonder if it is because the two to the chest have a chance of causing the BG to pause, giving a better head shot?
Only with paintball rifles.
Some people are easier to shoot in the head than others...
http://msp249.photobucket.com/albums/gg214/boomer33_2007/BigHead.jpg
I always thought 2 to the chest THEN 1 to the head was for civil suite reasons.
Taking a head-shot right off the bat "looks bad"
IMO, on the civilian side of the ball if your justified to shoot, you're justified to shoot. If the situation has come to a live and death situation, worry about the the legal situation later. Once it has come to that level everything else is out of play, the most important thing is at the end you walk away from it, as well as your loved ones walking away alive, walking and talking.
I would make the argument that in this country, if you're within the walls of your home, you're good to go. If you videotape yourself coup de gra'ing somebody that is out of the fight thats your business.
Referring back to my earlier post, on a gunfighting level, "hit them where you can, when you can" thats my quote. Look at the pdf, dude got hit from underneath a car and was manuevered on. Its a brutal,nasty thing not like the movies or TV and anyone who intends to defend themselves with a firearm needs to know that.
Sidewinder6
06-07-09, 10:10
Only with paintball rifles.
Some people are easier to shoot in the head than others...
http://msp249.photobucket.com/albums/gg214/boomer33_2007/BigHead.jpg
DUDE! I have tears sitting here by myself laughing like an idiot.
Good one.
Nathan_Bell
06-07-09, 15:58
Only with paintball rifles.
Some people are easier to shoot in the head than others...
http://msp249.photobucket.com/albums/gg214/boomer33_2007/BigHead.jpg
Look at the size of that Kid's HEEED, you've go to admit that's a HUGE Noggin' :p
Sidewinder6
06-07-09, 16:57
I dont even think I want to know what tore him up. I came back to read this thread and am still struggling. Sorry. This shot is just F'n classic.
I dont even think I want to know what tore him up.
Dude, those are scars from birth. They really should have performed a cesarean.
It looks like the gentleman has/had an intracranial mass or hydrocephalus . This may have caused some psychological issues (an explanation for the "scratches" on his forehead).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.